Does anybody agree with this or is it just catering to the lowest common denominator?Is my site really regarded as inaccessible because I have a reasonable command of the English language and can express myself well?Is this not the equivalent of insisting that authors write books in an easy-to-understand, as opposed to literary (thus enjoyable) style?

I would be interested to hear any thoughts on this.

Doug_Peters
—
2010-07-12T12:02:40Z —
#2

As far as content accessibility goes, I agree that your website words should be easy to understand and help the visors take the desired action. Say, for an ecommerce website, you'll need to make your sales page message crisp and to-the-point to get your leads converted into sales. As they say - follow the KISS principle {keep it short and simple-my version, don't like to call people stupid :)}

Get used to it, Michael! This is a glimpse of the future. Contrary to the popular belief that humans grow ever more sophisticated, languages have been declining in sophistication and power for thousands of years. My Latin teacher used to rail that French was just a gutter version of Latin, etc.

Regarding "b4 d mtg cUd gt strtd, dude had 2 read d papr", though, there's not as much wrong with it as you might think. For thousands of years, scribes have been abbreviating written words for convenience. The only thing really bad about that quote is the word "dude", which is a stupid slang word. But I dissociate writing from language, myself, since for me, English is speech, not written letters. If you sound out that text message, it's just straight English (but for the 'dude' word).

It's really bad/sloppy grammar that damages a language. It's the grammar (along with a rich vocabulary) that makes a language powerful, and we are dispensing with grammar at an alarming rate of knots.

Black_Max
—
2010-06-14T00:45:52Z —
#6

I'm going to work on my pronounciation of "capable" -- "capabuble". Now I know why you're such a "House" fan. (Hugh Laurie looks about 18 years old.)

As with so many things, there's a medium involved. I'm a (semi) professional writer and a professional English teacher, so I do know a couple of things and I have to watch myself to keep the convoluted sentence structures down, though I've pretty much gotten away from the overly flowery language.

Louis's examples are interesting. No one besides my Faulkner-loving English professor believes that this is any good:

Before the proceedings could be commenced by the participants who had assembled for the colloquium, it was of paramount importance that the agenda be read by the speaker.

Before the meeting could get started, the speaker had to read the agenda.

But some people want to argue about the use of words like "agenda" and even "speaker" in favor of moron-class words like "dude" and "stuff," pulling all of the meaning out of it in favor of sticking to their 100-word vocabulary.

And there's always txt-talk, which I think is turning vast swaths of society into blithering illiterates:

b4 d mtg cUd gt strtd, dude had 2 read d papr.

I'm all in favor of clear, everyday language, whether it be English, Flemish, or Tagalog, but I won't sink to the level of the cretinous language that passes for English that so many people speak. A pox on their houses.

That word comes up a lot in the ancient Sanskrit texts. Modern English colloquial translation: "heaps".

ralphm
—
2010-06-14T02:57:44Z —
#11

Black_Max said:

I ain't getting used to a damn thing.

Thou canst not use such language and claim as much! :lol:

Black_Max
—
2010-06-14T02:01:05Z —
#12

raPH if u dIS lngwg i wl mpt mY GAT n yr AZZ

Not only is language itself deteriorating, it's becoming more brutish, less capable of expressing nuance and degree. I'm "sad" both for stubbing my toe and losing my family in a house fire. I'm "mad" at you for causing me to stub my toe, and "reely mad" at the other guy for torching my place.

I refuse to be part of the dumbing-down of civilization. Instead I will throw a gauntlet in the face of "text-talk" and arrogant, illiterate posturing, using the words of Robert Browning to the guy who dissed his wife to address the barbarians who want to turn language into random gibberish:

How to return you thanks would task my wits.Kicking you seems the common lot of curs -While more appropriate greeting lends you grace.Surely to spit there glorifies your face.

I ain't getting used to a damn thing. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Stomme_poes
—
2010-06-14T06:50:35Z —
#13

Arg, people have been decrying the fall of (set non-dead language here) ever since forever. But, it's just evolution of language. So long as living people are using it, it will change.

xhtmlcoder
—
2010-06-13T11:11:43Z —
#14

If I were to pronounce the original in my native-tongue (which is not actually English) you'd get something like:

Gah, had to drag out the book for that one... nothing like translating what's usually held up as one of the earliest examples of modern english back to old english... Even more fun trying to remember when to use oþ or tó, and the difference between "und", "ond" and "and".

Not to go all medieval on people's kiester's Samuel L. Jackson style, but...

cwep hwá gean... cwep hwá gean...

Englisc, mōdor wyrter! Gedōn ēow cweþan hit!?!

ralphm
—
2010-06-12T06:29:02Z —
#18

Inaccessible:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,And by opposing end them?

Accessible:

Stick around, or bugger off? Hmm, dunno.Should I take the crap life dishes up orFlip the bird and five 'em hell?

Take your pick.

Stomme_poes said:

It's surely because of my reading levels that I still don't really grasp the Apache docs, and they seem to even be written in plain English.

No, that's not the case. Those docs are a good example of a failure to connect words with something meaningful, that's all.

AlexDawson
—
2010-06-12T08:02:49Z —
#19

Fewest words possible?

To be, or not to be: that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,And by opposing end them?

VS

What to-do?: Put my BS in lady fates hands or start killing.

No contest, mine is shorter and says basically the same thing!

AlexDawson
—
2010-06-12T00:36:23Z —
#20

I agree that humour can really improve the accessibility of information but it needs to be used appropriately. Language is as subjective and complex as design so people will take it differently depending on how you portray the information, one key area for example is the use of complex technical language, that can be a real barrier for dyslexics or those not in the same field (such as the medical industry) where those terms are used regularly.

PS: I agree the average user is (for lack of a better term - incompetent) I have several years of tech support practice via web based support desks to vouch for that.